Susquehanna University Political Review

Volume 11 Article 2

4-2020

Case Study of the Egyptian Revolution

Chelsea Cirillo

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/supr

Part of the American Politics Commons, and the International Relations Commons

Recommended Citation Cirillo, Chelsea (2020) "Case Study of the Egyptian Revolution," Susquehanna University Political Review: Vol. 11 , Article 2. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/supr/vol11/iss1/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Susquehanna University Political Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 11th Edition

Case Study of the Egyptian Revolution By: Chelsea Cirillo

Introduction: Many political scientists argue that , or semi-, are more prone to political violence than countries that are either strictly democratic or strictly authoritarian (Vreeland 2003, 401). An is defined as, “a type of regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features.” To test this theory, I will study the governmental system of , a country that has long been deemed a semi-democratic nation. Egypt has a score of -4 on the , which ranges from -10 to 10, and is titled a “closed anocracy” (Polity IV). I will examine the governmental history of Egypt. I will particularly look at civil war and revolution within the government, and the history of violence as it has risen and fallen with levels of popular sovereignty. Lessons that can be learned from a study of this sort is the need for a strong, centralized government in a state. Description of theory: The theory that this study will test is whether or not semi-democracies, or anocracies, in states are more prone to political violence than either pure or pure democracies. Anocracy is a type of political regime which

43 11th Edition employs both democratic and autocratic features. Hegre et al. (2001) describe them as “partly open yet repressive.” Fearon and Laiton (2003) describe them as “politically weak central governments with weak policing or inept and corrupt counterinsurgency practices''. The theory that anocracies are more prone to violence stems from McAdams’ (1982) description of the roles of dissident groups, or groups who oppose the political group in power, in these countries. In autocratic regime, opportunity is too restricted to allow these groups to form, and probability for peaceful collective action is slim. To contrast, democratic regimes are free enough to allow for peaceful, collective action. The problem with an anocratic regime is that they lie in the middle spectrum in terms of dissident groups. They are free enough to allow organization of these groups, but are too restricted to allow for nonviolent collective action. This often results in these groups resorting to violence, as it is the only effective means of action. Violence from dissident groups eventually results in the government attempting to control these groups with force. In this study, government-opposing dissident groups will act as the independent variable. (Vreeland 2003, 401-402). The type of violence between groups belonging to the same country is known as civil war. The American Political Science Review has published studies relating to civil war using the Polity Index, a 21 point scale of political regime, ranging from -10 to 10 (Polity IV). They found that civil conflict onset is linked to the middle range of

44 11th Edition this scale. Civil conflict onset in Egypt will act as the dependent variable, with the levels of conflict in Egypt directly relating to the effectiveness and prevalence of government opposing groups. According to this theory, the outcome of studying this case would be that Egypt often experiences civil conflict. Under Egypt’s anocratic regime, extremist and terrorist groups who oppose the government will impose unrest and violent attacks throughout Egypt. Justification: The case I will be studying is the government of Egypt. According to the Polity Data Series, Egypt has a score of -4, which is deemed a “closed anocracy.” Within the past ten years, the Egyptian government has undergone massive shifts of power. Corruption and abuse of power by these forces have caused uprisings and calls for further regime transitions. The lack of policing and overall weakness of these regimes allows for easy insurgency amongst the Egyptian population and a weak central government allows for insurgence to be powerful. Egypt employs power using authoritarian practices, yet grants its citizens enough freedom to effectively oppose them by means of revolution. During the Egyptian revolution, government-opposing groups could only be effective by turning violent, due to strict monopoly of power and lack of political rights to allow peaceful action. Clashes between security forces and protesters often resulted in many injuries and deaths. The Egyptian revolution is a most-likely

45 11th Edition case, as it shows an anocratic regime's inability to allow peaceful action among dissident groups. Analysis: In January 2011, President Hosni Mubarak was overthrown by the military following mass government-opposing protests, which is known as the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. Furthermore, Mubarak shaped his thirty year regime through his emergency law, which imposed highly autocratic practices. Throughout this emergency law, Mubarak’s National Democratic Party secured power by means of constitutional manipulation, repression, and rigged , increasing the president’s power and decreasing citizens’ rights. In Egypt’s regime at the time, Mubarak could easily concentrate power in an executive branch. He had the power to elect the prime minister, dissolve the legislature, and veto laws (Asser 2011). Local councils were elected according to a winner-takes- all system which guaranteed the NDP’s monopoly of power. This acquired monopoly of power encouraged corruption and constitutional manipulation (Al Jazeera Media Network 2017). The protestors, mainly Egyptian youth, opposed many dissatisfactions of the Mubarak regime regarding his authoritarian-leaning leadership, these dissatisfactions being both political and socioeconomic. Lack of political and civil rights, anger over corruption, inflation, high unemployment and inability to find work, and police brutality were among the many struggles which Egyptians experienced during Mubarak’s

46 11th Edition reign (McMurry 2013). During these protests, Egypt’s capital, Cairo, was described as a “war zone”. Violence between security forces and protesters resulted in over 800 deaths and 6,000 injuries, with police failing to disperse the record high numbers of protesters. The protesters, as well as striking labor unions, demanded the overthrow of Mubarak. Mubarak tried to make peace with protesters, but his repeated refusal to step down resulted in protests rising in intensity. Mubarak was finally overthrown on February 11, 2011 by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, whose role in government was to maintain order and stability (Kannalley 2011). After about a year of military rule, the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt through a series of elections, having gained support from the middle class. The Muslim Brotherhood is an opposition group and political organization which is based on the belief that Islam is not only a religion, but a way of life. They promote ways of life given by the Qu’ran rather than a secular lifestyle. Islamist leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Muhammed Morsi was elected to be president in June 2013, making him the first democratically elected presdent in Egypt (Byrony and Cullinate 2013). During Morsi and the Brotherhood’s reign, their push for an Islamic constitution caused an outrage amongst secularist Egyptians. During the formation of this constitution, Morsi also issued a presidential decree which made his decisions more valuable than judicial review, which caused dissatisfaction among the military. In July 2013,

47 11th Edition

Morsi was overthrown by a military coup d’etat, intended to reestablish order, led by minister of defense General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. The coup was completed by military soldiers in vehicles gathering in Tahrir Square, where protests for Morsi’s removal were in process. In a presidential square nearby, Islamist supporters chanted, advocating for Morsi’s stay. The clash between these Islamist supporters and military tanks resulted in many deaths as well as over 300 injuries. After the coup, Morsi was taken into military custody. The Egyptian government declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization in December 2013 and suspended the Islamist constitution. Since el-Sisi’s , the Muslim Brotherhood has been unable to reestablish any political authority in Egypt. (El-Bendery 2013, 1-50) The reason for Mubarak and Morsi’s inability to hold power in Egypt stem from the effectiveness of the role of government opposing groups in Egypt. An influential group in Egypt which acted to oppose the regime during this time is the Egyptian military leadership. Their purpose is to maintain order and social stability in Egypt, and throughout their history they have established a strong hold of governmental authority (New York Times). One of their primary responsibilities under their role of maintaining order and stability is to preserve human rights and adhere to the demands of the population. An authoritarian government and an influential, -preserving group both exercising strong power in a country inevitably creates tension, given the contradiction of the

48 11th Edition attempt to oppress citizens and the attempt to promote liberty of citizens. The SCAF ruled Egypt for a short period of time in 2011, following their overthrow Mubarak, but have kept a high amount of government authority even when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power. During Morsi’s election, they preserved a vast number of legislative and policing powers. According to conflict analyst Anna Louis Strachan, “The military has subsequently consolidated its control over almost all aspects of the state apparatus in Egypt.” (Strachan 2017, 3). In both instances of Mubarak and Morsi, the military formed coups to counteract the oppression of citizens that these presidents had put into effect. After mass, violent protests against these lack of rights, the SCAF complied with the population and recognized the need for political rights to be reestablished in Egypt. The government alone was not powerful enough to repress these coups, since power was split in Egypt (New York Times). Military head Abhel Fattah el-Sisi was elected president in June of 2014, with more than 96% of the population’s vote, and is still in power currently. During el-Sisi’s presidency, he expressed his concern for the need for a Unified Arab Force as an attempt to decrease violence against Egyptian minorities from jihadist forces. el-Sisi gained support and was elected for a second term in 2018, with over 97% of the vote, and seemed to bring a new “era of hope” for Egypt. However, throughout his presidency el-Sisi shaped his regime to be increasingly autocratic. He has given an interior

49 11th Edition ministry in Egypt authority to arrest and torture dissident groups in order to establish political authority. Supporters of this regime argue that coercion of this nature is the only effective way of maintaining order and structure throughout Egypt. However, the el-Sisi regime has been ineffective in creating a strong hold of its citizens, with protests being so high in numbers that police forces have trouble dispersing them, furthering political violence between protestors and the regime. (Bayles 2019). Lessons learned: In sum, it has been proven that anocracies are especially prone to political violence due to the opportunities available for government-opposing dissident groups. The theory that semi-democracies grant dissident groups enough freedom for collective action, but not enough freedom to allow protests to be peaceful holds true while studying the case of Egypt throughout the course of its regime changes. A state is unable to remain peaceful if its monopoly of power is based on authoritarian principles, yet its citizens are given enough liberty to form groups that oppose this monopoly of power. Liberty without full democracy creates political violence between government and citizens. Thus, a state would be able to decrease civil conflict by increasing democratization. If Egypt were to democratize, giving its citizens more political rights and civil liberties, Egyptians would feel less oppressed by the regime and anti-government protests would decrease. Democratization would

50 11th Edition also provide economic benefits to Egypt, as democratization is linked with high human capital and lower inflation. A more stable economy would give Egyptians better standards of living by increasing employment levels. Lack of rights as well as economic instability constitute the prominent reasons of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, furthering establishing the notion of democratic development being necessary in peace maintenance.

51 11th Edition

Bibliography

Asser, Martin, “Q&A: Egyptian Protests Against Hosni Mubarak.” BBC. BBC News Services, 11 February 2019 Blaydes, Lisa. “Challenges to Stability in Egypt.” Spring Series Issue 519. 22 April 2019 Cunningham, Erin, “Muslim Brotherhood Vs. Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in Egypt.” PRI. Public Radio International, 13 August 2012. “Egypt’s Emergency Law Explained.” AlJazeera. Al Jazeera Media Network, 17 April 2017. “Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces: Statements and Key Leaders.” NYtimes. New York Times El-Bendary, Mohamed. 2013. Egyptian Revolution: Between Hope and Despair, Mubarak to Morsi. New York: Algora Publishing. Accessed November 22, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central. Jones, Byrony, and Cullinane, Susannah. “What is the Muslim Brotherhood?” CNN. Cable News Networks, 3 July 2013. Kannalley, Craig. “Egyptian Revolution 2011: A Complete Guide to the Unrest.” Huffpost, HuffPost News, 30 January 2011.

52 11th Edition

McMurray, David A., and Amanda Ufheil-Somers. “The Arab Revolts : Dispatches on Militant Democracy in the Middle East.” Public Cultures of the Middle East and North Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013. “Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions.” Polity IV, 6 June 2014. Strachan, Anna Louise. “Conflict Analysis of Egypt.” Knowledge, Evidence, and Learning for Development. 2 July 2013: 1- 13. Vreeland, James Raymond. “The Effect of Political Regime on Civil War: Unpacking Anocracy.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52, no. 3 (June 2008): 401–25. doi:10.1177/0022002708315594.

53